Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Mitchell, 44 So. 132.

21 citing documents.

State v. Tytus 240 So. 2d 723 La. 1970
“Material testimony should not be excluded because the witness in giving a connected narrative of an occurrence finds it necessary to mention some act or circumstance not independently admissible in evidence,” , 44 So.
State v. Clifton 172 So. 2d 657 La. 1965
State v. Clifton 172 So. 2d 657 La. 1965
State v. Alleman 51 So. 2d 83 La. 1950
State v. Broussard 12 So. 2d 218 La. 1942
State v. Boone 195 So. 511 La. 1940
State v. Kifer 173 So. 169 La. 1937
This identical question was presented to this court for consideration in four cases at *677 about the same time, in the year 1907, and was decided by a , 44 So.
State v. Dreher 118 So. 85 La. 1928
State v. Brown 116 So. 588 La. 1928
State v. Phillips 114 So. 171 La. 1927
State v. Lofton 114 So. 109 La. 1927
State v. Cole 109 So. 505 La. 1926
State v. Johnson 107 So. 309 La. 1926
State v. Shoemake 78 So. 240 La. 1918
State v. Brannon 63 So. 507 La. 1913
State v. Ailes 63 So. 172 La. 1913
*567 “It is only in extreme cases that verdicts will be set aside on account of improper remarks made by the prosecuting officer.” , 44 South.
State v. Jones 55 So. 687 La. 1911
State v. Benjamin 53 So. 847 La. 1910
State v. Brady 50 So. 806 La. 1909
State v. Hamilton 49 So. 1004 La. 1909
State v. Montgomery 46 So. 997 La. 1908